The Balkan Peninsula [FF] --Feb 2nd 2010--

[InkL0sed]

FBIH in Bosnia is splittable as well

[Mjinga]

I don't like the idea of capitals. I can tell that Dalmacija and Dubrovnik border each other and that Dubrovnik is part of Croatia, but only because you asked, and then I looked. Maybe if you added a black dot to the middle of each light purple dot? And then... does Epirus border Central Greece or no? I really can't tell. I like the legend, but you're right about your title. Perhaps either make it fully brighter with the seals, or nix the seals to keep the darkness of the map... in any case, the darkened seals look a bit odd.

That's all from me. Rock on.

[I GOT SERVED]

Could you make the connection between Dubrovnik and Dalmacija a bit darker? I'm fine with there being a dotted line there; however, I think that if you could darken it a bit, then the line would be much more prominent and easier to see. Same thing for the connecting lines with Crete.

Also, that island above Attica/Central Greece...I'm assuming that it is a non playable territory. That being said, could you maybe make it the same color as Asian Turkey? If that's not possible, then maybe move the island a bit so that it isn't as close to the other territories in Greece. I'm worried that I (as well as others) might mistake that as being a part of Attica, or some other territory.

[ZeakCytho]

FBIH in Bosnia is splittable as well

Not really - I mean, size wise it is, but there's no other accurate way to display Bosnia given the size limitations I have. See the discussion on the last page for more details.

I don't like the idea of capitals. I can tell that Dalmacija and Dubrovnik border each other and that Dubrovnik is part of Croatia, but only because you asked, and then I looked. Maybe if you added a black dot to the middle of each light purple dot? And then... does Epirus border Central Greece or no? I really can't tell. I like the legend, but you're right about your title. Perhaps either make it fully brighter with the seals, or nix the seals to keep the darkness of the map... in any case, the darkened seals look a bit odd.

That's all from me. Rock on.

I'll be changing the attack routes to make them more visible. As for the title... . I'm not such a big fan of the seals. Maybe I'll ditch them altogether...?

Could you make the connection between Dubrovnik and Dalmacija a bit darker? I'm fine with there being a dotted line there; however, I think that if you could darken it a bit, then the line would be much more prominent and easier to see. Same thing for the connecting lines with Crete.

Yup, will change.

Also, that island above Attica/Central Greece...I'm assuming that it is a non playable territory. That being said, could you maybe make it the same color as Asian Turkey? If that's not possible, then maybe move the island a bit so that it isn't as close to the other territories in Greece. I'm worried that I (as well as others) might mistake that as being a part of Attica, or some other territory.

Euboea is non-playable territory, so I suppose I'll make it grey. The other non-playable Aegean islands, too, I guess. I'll leave the ones that will be the Kyklades blue, however.

Thanks for the comments guys.

[Teflon Kris]

If people are still wondering the map might be a touch dark in general, a quick solution might be to brighten the flag icons and title - if attention were drawn to them it might brighten the whole impression of the map.

Apologies if this issue has already been put to bed - I haven't read many pages back, although Mjinga makes a similar point above.

Otherwise the graphics are great - the bonus insets are top quality.

Is the additional territories discussion aiming towards geographical accuracy or gameplay? Would the map get through on the basis of being unique geographically without having extra gameplay features such as capitals (which you would rather omit)?

[ZeakCytho]

If people are still wondering the map might be a touch dark in general, a quick solution might be to brighten the flag icons and title - if attention were drawn to them it might brighten the whole impression of the map.

I think people in general are happy with the map's brightness level. I can try making the title even brighter for the next version, though I don't think it will look very good

Otherwise the graphics are great - the bonus insets are top quality.

The legend? Wow. It's a real love-hate thing. I really didn't expect so many people to love it.

Is the additional territories discussion aiming towards geographical accuracy or gameplay? Would the map get through on the basis of being unique geographically without having extra gameplay features such as capitals (which you would rather omit)?

I'm aiming for geographic accuracy, but would like to get more territories so the gameplay isn't totally one-sided. I don't see any reason why the map would need to have a gameplay feature to be quenched - besides, it already has neutral Kosovo with a +1 bonus. Think of it as a one territory "capital"

So, for the next version:
Add Kyklades, Split Trakya
Make non-Kyklades Aegean islands non-playable color
Change attack lines
Brighten the title

Anything else? If not I'll have an update...sometime in the near future.

[ZeakCytho]

All the changes from the above post have been made for version 12. Ignore the typo in Kyklades - I noticed it right after saving, but didn't bother to fix it on the map.

[bigimg]http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/ZeakCytho/CC/Balkans/Balkans-V12-1.png[/bigimg]

So we now have 52 territories. Thoughts on gameplay?

[gimil]

Hi Zeak,

Bear in mind that I haven't read much of the previous few pages, these are just some of my thoughts.

The title area still isn't working for me. The flag images are far to bold and saturated compared to the colour scheme of the rest of the map. I think you are best going without the flag images in my opinion and make the rest of the title alot bigger.

I also still feel that the legends could be done better so that it is easier to pick out which bonus goes with which continent. Maybe a minimap with just the bonuses numbers on it then the continent names listed next to it, like the protugal map?

Cheers,
gimil

[ZeakCytho]

Hi Zeak,

Bear in mind that I haven't read much of the previous few pages, these are just some of my thoughts.

The title area still isn't working for me. The flag images are far to bold and saturated compared to the colour scheme of the rest of the map. I think you are best going without the flag images in my opinion and make the rest of the title alot bigger.

I also still feel that the legends could be done better so that it is easier to pick out which bonus goes with which continent. Maybe a minimap with just the bonuses numbers on it then the continent names listed next to it, like the protugal map?

Cheers,
gimil

It's all already on my to-do list, Gimil . But thanks for your comments. Some people had suggested I saturate the flags more, but I preferred them desaturated - or not on the map at all, maybe? As for the legend, I'm still trying to come up with ways to separate it from the map well. The problem with just throwing a floating minimap on is that it looks out of place - it needs some sort of border.

Anyway, I'm primarily interested in gameplay feedback now. Title and legend stuff can be worked out later.

[MrBenn]

You could add the other Greek island as another territory (the one that is currently grey)... I'm not sure what it's called though.. I think it's Khalkis or Euboea or Evia...
You've also got the Ionian Islands (Corfu, Lafkas, kefalonia, Zakyanthos) off the West coast of Greece

[ZeakCytho]

You could add the other Greek island as another territory (the one that is currently grey)... I'm not sure what it's called though.. I think it's Khalkis or Euboea or Evia...
You've also got the Ionian Islands (Corfu, Lafkas, kefalonia, Zakyanthos) off the West coast of Greece

But Greece is already large as is - 9 territories. Romania is 10 now. I basically have a few small bonuses, two medium ones, and then two massive ones. I fear that Greece and Romania will never come into play, or that if they do, they will be overpowered, having only 3 borders each.

[I GOT SERVED]

Does Epirus border Central Greece? That border seems somewhat vague in my opinion. Could you either add/remove a mountain or two in order to make that clearer?

[ZeakCytho]

Does Epirus border Central Greece? That border seems somewhat vague in my opinion. Could you either add/remove a mountain or two in order to make that clearer?

They do border. I will make this clearer for the next version.

Come on guys, no one has gameplay thoughts?

[DimnjacarStef]

for me it's everything ok but I'm not relevant

[Teflon Kris]

The Legend
I think people will be able to work it out (it's easier than some maps' complex bonus systems) and it looks cool.

If it needs changing I'd suggest firstly re-arranging the legend layout so that the areas are a little closer to how they are in the map (this would mainly involve moving Greece down - and moving the writing) . Something in between the current legend and a mini-map legend). That might be a first stage change (and possibly not too much work) and then see what people think to that? Some of those raising the issue may be happy with it then?

Then again, my idea with the title didn't prove to be brilliant. Thanks for trying though.

[bryguy]

Wow, this map looks great.

1) The legend is slightly confusing, but as DJ said, its easier than some maps' bonus systems. Personally I think it looks unique and that it should stay as it is
2) Kykaldes is slightly harder to read. Maybe move the name up and to the right a bit?
3) Where will the armies for Attica go? There's no room on the territory
4) FBIH is slightly harder to read (in the legend), maybe increasing it a font size or two? There's plenty of room.
5) Love the title, but are any of the images copyrighted? (Just asking to make sure)
6) Will armies fit on all territories? Some territories seem to small, here are some: Skopje, Istanbul, Istra, Attica (mentioned earlier), Crete, Bucuresti, and Sumadija


I absolutely love this map, good job making it so far zeak

[iancanton]

I still need a way to fit at least 2 more territories in, so 4 player games don't start with 12 territories each. 54 would be a better number, but I'll compromise on 52 if there's no way we can fit more in.

54 isn't a better number than 52 because 2-player games start with 18 territories each (i assume that these counts exclude neutral kosovo). with 52 starting territories, 2-player games have 17 each and 4-player games have 13 each, which are both perfectly good.

ian.

[ZeakCytho]

for me it's everything ok but I'm not relevant

Wow, this map looks great.

1) The legend is slightly confusing, but as DJ said, its easier than some maps' bonus systems. Personally I think it looks unique and that it should stay as it is
2) Kykaldes is slightly harder to read. Maybe move the name up and to the right a bit?
3) Where will the armies for Attica go? There's no room on the territory
4) FBIH is slightly harder to read (in the legend), maybe increasing it a font size or two? There's plenty of room.
5) Love the title, but are any of the images copyrighted? (Just asking to make sure)
6) Will armies fit on all territories? Some territories seem to small, here are some: Skopje, Istanbul, Istra, Attica (mentioned earlier), Crete, Bucuresti, and Sumadija


I absolutely love this map, good job making it so far zeak

Thanks for the comments, but most of them are little graphical tweaks. There is room for the army numbers on Attica - the army shadow fits fine, it's just mostly masked by the color of the region. In fact, since the circles fit in every territory, there should be absolutely no problem fitting the numbers.
The title images are obviously not copyrighted; I'm not an idiot. I took the images of the flags of the various nations and cropped them and applied various layer styles myself.

I still need a way to fit at least 2 more territories in, so 4 player games don't start with 12 territories each. 54 would be a better number, but I'll compromise on 52 if there's no way we can fit more in.

54 isn't a better number than 52 because 2-player games start with 18 territories each (i assume that these counts exclude neutral kosovo). with 52 starting territories, 2-player games have 17 each and 4-player games have 13 each, which are both perfectly good.

ian.

Oh, well that's good. Guess we won't be adding anymore territories.

So, seriously, no one has any gameplay comments? I find it hard to believe that everything is perfect as is.

[bryguy]

[quote="ZeakCythoThanks for the comments, but most of them are little graphical tweaks. The title images are obviously not copyrighted; I'm not an idiot. I took the images of the flags of the various nations and cropped them and applied various layer styles myself.[/quote]

Yea, most of my comments are just little tweaks, because thats all I could find wrong

And I just had to make sure for the images, better be safe then sorry, right?

Once again good job on the map

[Teflon Kris]

Looks like everyone is pretty happy with the gameplay.

[iancanton]

You could add the other Greek island as another territory (the one that is currently grey)... I'm not sure what it's called though.. I think it's Khalkis or Euboea or Evia...

But Greece is already large as is - 9 territories. Romania is 10 now. I basically have a few small bonuses, two medium ones, and then two massive ones. I fear that Greece and Romania will never come into play, or that if they do, they will be overpowered, having only 3 borders each.

adding euboea will be fine for gameplay. at the moment, that big grey island simply looks annoying. classic north america has 3 borders and 9 territories, just like our greece. one more territory won't make much difference to the fact that greece remains an excellent place to grow slowly in a multiplayer game.

regarding the three 2-territory bonuses, the first complaint u'll have after quenching will be about unfair drops. slovenia, because it's at the edge of the map, has some space to fit in a third territory, with the names being moved to the unplayable area. the other two will need to have starting neutrals, unless u can think of a better solution.

ian.

[ZeakCytho]

adding euboea will be fine for gameplay. at the moment, that big grey island simply looks annoying. classic north america has 3 borders and 9 territories, just like our greece. one more territory won't make much difference to the fact that greece remains an excellent place to grow slowly in a multiplayer game.

But 53 territories is much worse than 52 with regard to the number of starting neutrals. It's not a huge difference, but it means 4p games will start with neutrals. Plus I'd have to redraw Euboa so it's clear what it borders. Also, I'm not sure a comparison to classic is meaningful - classic doesn't have the plethora of small bonuses this map does, so Greece is much less attractive. If someone builds in Greece, while other players get smaller bonuses, they will definitely be behind, unless it's a no spoils game.

regarding the three 2-territory bonuses, the first complaint u'll have after quenching will be about unfair drops. slovenia, because it's at the edge of the map, has some space to fit in a third territory, with the names being moved to the unplayable area. the other two will need to have starting neutrals, unless u can think of a better solution.

I've put a lot of thought into this before posting. The issue here is that if we make starting neutrals, it brings down the total territory count, which defeats the purpose of adding more territories. Unless we go all the way down to 42 with starting neutrals, which seems very excessive to me. I think if we make enough small bonuses, the drop rate will even out.

As it is, there are 3 +1 bonuses that can be given on a drop, each 2 territories (most with 2 borders, one with 1 border) and 3 +2 bonuses (I'll bump Turkey up to +2, so it's even with its other continents; all are 3 territories/2 borders). There's also Kosovo, which is a very easy-to-take and defend +1. That's 7 easy to get bonuses, so in an 8p game, things should be fairly balanced, with one player being slightly shafted.
Now, in 2 player games, the drop is always very random. There's chance someone will start with all the small bonuses, sure, but the chance must be very low. I'd appreciate it if someone who's good at statistics could come up with the % chance one player will start with one or more bonuses and the other player with none - I don't think this number is very high.
In games of 3-6 players, if someone starts with a bonus, the others will catch up quickly.

So, I guess I put this out to the community: do you think the chance of an unfair drop in 1v1s is so high that we need starting neutrals?

[iancanton]

I think if we make enough small bonuses, the drop rate will even out.

let me demonstrate by using the example of flipping a coin, whre p(xhyt) is the probability of there being exactly x heads and y tails.

2 flips: p(2h)=1/4=25%, p(2t)=1/4=25%, p(1h1t)=2/4=50%; 50% chance of even split.
4 flips: p(4h)=1/16=6.25%, p(4t)=1/16=6.25%, p(3h1t)=4/16=25%, p(1h3t)=4/16=25%, p(2h2t)=6/16=37.5%; 37.5% chance of even split.
6 flips: p(6h)=p(6t)=1/64, p(5h1t)=p(1h5t)=6/64, p(4h2t)=p(2h4t)=15/64, p(3h3t)=20/16=31.25%; 31.25% chance of even split.

as u can see, the more times u flip a coin, the less likely u'll have an even split between heads and tails. in other words, the more small bonuses there are, the less chance there will be of an even drop.

ian.

[ZeakCytho]

I think if we make enough small bonuses, the drop rate will even out.

let me demonstrate by using the example of flipping a coin, whre p(xhyt) is the probability of there being exactly x heads and y tails.

2 flips: p(2h)=1/4=25%, p(2t)=1/4=25%, p(1h1t)=2/4=50%; 50% chance of even split.
4 flips: p(4h)=1/16=6.25%, p(4t)=1/16=6.25%, p(3h1t)=4/16=25%, p(1h3t)=4/16=25%, p(2h2t)=6/16=37.5%; 37.5% chance of even split.
6 flips: p(6h)=p(6t)=1/64, p(5h1t)=p(1h5t)=6/64, p(4h2t)=p(2h4t)=15/64, p(3h3t)=20/16=31.25%; 31.25% chance of even split.

as u can see, the more times u flip a coin, the less likely u'll have an even split between heads and tails. in other words, the more small bonuses there are, the less chance there will be of an even drop.

ian.

Okay, so if we plop a starting neutral down in Slovenia, Bosnia, and Macedonia, we're down to 49 starting territories, a bad number. Which is more important - the chance of a drop being bad on some games, or the guarantee of the drop being unfair to whomever goes first in others? I'm inclined to say that bonuses are the lesser of two evils, because they will be distributed randomly (there will be some fair matches), whereas if each player starts with 12 territories, whomever goes first will always have an advantage.

Ideally, we wouldn't have either problem, but given the size constraint (I don't think I can fit any more territories in), I think we have to pick one or the other, no?

[_42]

HELLO
NICE MAP, GOOD WORK

only one thing that bothers me because i am from Montenegro

dont divide Montenegro to Podgorica and Niksic.. theese are only 2 cities in 30 km ..

my sugestions :

Sjever ( north ) & Jug ( south )
or
Sjever ( north ) & Primorje ( Coastal Area )
or
Sjever ( north ) & Boka ( Bay of Boca )


If you insist to put town names - then southern part should be caled - KOTOR ( that is the oldest city in montenegro..once, it had its own military force and navy )